How this directory is built

From candidate to published entry

1. 1

   Finding candidates

   Candidates come from public search across a fixed set of queries covering resume screening, candidate ranking, phone and video interviewing, psychometric and skills assessment, and matching. Queries are recorded with their results so a listing can be traced back to how it was found. Publishing directories, review sites and news articles are not themselves treated as vendors.

2. 2

   Confirming the vendor

   A candidate becomes a vendor only once we identify a company domain it controls. Records are deduplicated on the registrable domain together with product identity, never on company name alone, because unrelated companies share names and one company can ship products on separate domains.

3. 3

   Gathering sources

   We read pages the vendor controls: the homepage, product and feature pages, documentation, and any compliance or bias-audit page. Each retrieved page is stored with the date we fetched it and a hash of its content, so we can tell a genuine change from a re-fetch of the same text. We quote short attributed excerpts and link out; we do not republish whole pages or audit documents.

4. 4

   Extracting claims

   Structured facts are drafted from those pages. Every substantive field must point at a specific source, and the extractor is required to return "unknown" rather than fill a gap. A claim with no source does not enter the record, and cannot be stored against one.

5. 5

   Human review

   A person checks the draft against its sources before anything is published. Nothing reaches a public page automatically, no matter how confident the extraction step was. Category assignments are approved individually, and a reviewer overriding an extracted claim has to record why.

6. 6

   Rechecking

   Published entries are rechecked on a schedule, with compliance and audit pages rechecked more often than general product pages. Unchanged pages are not refetched more than necessary. Audit links are tested periodically, and a link we can no longer reach is marked as such rather than quietly removed.

What has to be true before an entry is published

Every one of these must hold. Audit links and NYC market evidence may legitimately remain unknown, and their absence does not stop an entry being published.

• A company domain we have verified the vendor controls.
• A product identity clear enough to name.
• At least one relevant source that a reviewer has approved.
• A category a person has approved, not one assigned automatically.
• A description written for this directory rather than copied from a vendor page.
• No claim that a tool or vendor complies with any law.
• Every source link validated server-side at publication.

What the market evidence labels mean

A record can carry several of these at once, each cited separately. Listing pages show the strongest; vendor pages show all of them. A signal with no source attached is ignored rather than displayed.

What we deliberately do not do

• We do not list who performed an audit. The directory links to published audit summaries but does not catalogue, rank or index auditors. We run audits ourselves, and a directory of our own competitors is not something we should be keeping.
• We do not rate or score anyone. There is no compliance badge, no risk score and no pass or fail. Those judgements require evidence a public directory cannot have.
• We do not infer anything from silence. A missing audit link, an unknown market label or a gap in a product description means we did not find the information.
• We do not use this as a sales list. Entries are not ranked by how likely a company is to buy anything, and the directory is not a prospect list.

Limits of this directory

Absence of evidence is not evidence

If no published audit appears on an entry, that means we did not find one. Many audits are never published at all, some are published where search engines do not reach, and some sit behind a customer login. A blank here is never a compliance finding, and we do not score or rank anyone on it.

The obligation is the employer's

Local Law 144 places its requirements on employers and employment agencies, not on the companies that sell hiring software. A vendor appearing here is not thereby subject to the law. Vendors can and do arrange independent audits on behalf of customers, which is why audit links exist at all.

Coverage depends on use, not headquarters

Whether a tool falls within the definition of an automated employment decision tool turns on what it does and how an employer uses it. It does not turn on where the vendor is based. We describe product functionality; we cannot see how any particular employer has configured a deployment.

Public sources go stale

Product pages are marketing material, and they change. An entry reflects what its sources said on the date shown. Where a vendor has since changed a product, renamed it, or stopped selling it, the entry may lag until the next recheck or until someone tells us.

This is not legal advice

Nothing in this directory is legal advice, and nothing in it establishes whether a particular tool or deployment complies with any law. Decisions about your obligations belong with your own counsel.

Corrections

If an entry is wrong, we want to fix it. Tell us which entry and which field, and point us at a source if you have one. We check the claim against the source rather than simply applying the edit, and we record what changed. Vendors can ask for a correction on the same terms as anyone else; being the subject of an entry does not give control over it, and asking does not get an entry removed.